What's the difference?

[Qwack]

I am a completely fresh programmer. Fresh as in I have NEVER touched a line of code before. But I want to learn and am looking for an easy language to learn. I am considering 2 possibilities. One is PowerBasic and another is PureBasic.

Does anyone in this forum have experiences with both languages? What's the main difference? Both claim to do almost the same thing and to be equally powerful. However PureBasic has unlimited lifetime updates, with no extra charge.

In other words, why should I buy and learn PureBasic compared to PowerBasic?

Thanks

[Rings]

I am a completely fresh programmer. Fresh as in I have NEVER touched a line of code before. But I want to learn and am looking for an easy language to learn. I am considering 2 possibilities. One is PowerBasic and another is PureBasic.

Does anyone in this forum have experiences with both languages? What's the main difference? Both claim to do almost the same thing and to be equally powerful. However PureBasic has unlimited lifetime updates, with no extra charge.

In other words, why should I buy and learn PowerBasic compared to PureBasic?

Thanks

well before a flamewar starts, check out same question and topic at the Powerbasic forum: http://www.powerbasic.com/support/forum ... 08988.html

Purebasic can be evaluated for free, Powerbasic not.
Purebasic produces ASM-Output, which can be more modified and optimized if needed, Powerbasic not.

Powerbasic can Call ActiveX-DLL's nativly,Purebaic with a wrapper only.
Powerbasic has build in 80BitsFloats, Purebasic only 32BitFloats.
Purebasic's CommandSet can be extened by the users (and it would be )
Purebasic have native API-Support, means NO declares needed.
Powerbasic has build in Error-system, Pure only as library.
Purebasic has build in 2d and 3D gfx-commands(, Powerbasic not.
Purebasic has build in CRC32, MD5 cipher functions,Powerbasic not.
Purebasic has a free VisualDesigner build in (and good 3d-party VD's also), Powerbasic's VisualDesigner is not free ($99) .
Powerbasic did Stringhandling very clever,Purebasic-stringhandling not .

so that are only a few facts.I'm a long time user of Powerbasic since version 2 from DOS.There was never a update for free. Both compilers has their markets, pros and cons.for normal appz i prefer Purebasic for its wide range of possibilities, for industrial appz better use Powerbasic for its robustness.And Purebasic is cheap ,updates free..... .feel the pure power with the community ........

[GedB]

About $133

Powerbasic = $199

Purebasic = 59 € = $66

[gnozal]

... better use Powerbasic for its robustness

Sad but true. I wish Fred would take more time to improve Purebasic's robustness (and reliable arithmetic / statistic functions) instead of adding fancy 3D things.
It's only my opinion, no offense ! I like Purebasic, but I am not using those game things.
I wish Purebasic would be more Powerbasic like and less Blitzbasic like.

[Qwack]

well before a flamewar starts, check out same question and topic at the Powerbasic forum: http://www.powerbasic.com/support/forum ... 08988.html

Yup, that's me with the same question there. I don't mean to start a flamewar, just wanting to get some answers that's all

[Rings]

just wanting to get some answers that's all

yes and that is what i do. i know both compilers and tell you the facts.i have no realy facts seen on the powerbasic-topic so i tell you here (if i had post same on Powerbasic-forum it will been censored or removed from their staff, believe me ). This forum and users have no problem with other compilers and languages.Often some uses 2 or 3 at the same time and combine them to the best results . So its your choice now .

[GedB]

Qwack,

The two posts seem very similar. Are you Eugene Ng?

[Pupil]

Qwack,

The two posts seem very similar. Are you Eugene Ng?

was it this that gave him away :

Yup, that's me with the same question there. I don't mean to start a flamewar, just wanting to get some answers that's all

[Qwack]

Yes, I'm Eugene Ng. They wouldn't allow nicknames there, otherwise I would be Qwack there too. Which is why I understand what Rings meant when he said that the operators there would censor certain content.

[GedB]

Thats what I get for skimming.

No problem, just curious. I then saw at the bottom of the powerbasic thread you say that your going to post on the Purebasic thread.

There was me thinking I was Sherlock bleeding holmes

Oh way, back to your question.

I think it all comes down to what you want to do. Powerbasic is for the serious professional programmer. They spend more time getting it all right and I'm betting their programmers work full time. The price reflects this, and it is still well priced against the competition.

Purebasic is more accessible, and is aimed more at the hobbyist. The over representation of Game libraries reflects this.

So the choice between the two comes down to what you want to use it for. If you want to have fun learning to program, write some games or handy utilities then Purebasic is the best there is.

If you are looking to learn some seriously coding, Powerbasic is a better choice.

However, in my opinion, you need to learn one of the commercially recognised languages like Java or C++ if you want to code for a living. I say this not because either basic is up to the job, they both are. I say this because nobody every advertises for a Pure or Power basic programmer. At work I have to use VB and Java. I only use Purebasic when I want to enjoy programming.

[Edwin Knoppert]

Due missing of an option like Option explicit newcomers (and also users like me) will certainly have troubles with wrongly declared variables in PureBasic.

However, this option is prob. never used by newcomers, the syntax checker should work better imo.

Further i think PureBasic is very much worth it's price!!!
But for professional use i prefer a more stable compiler as PowerBASIC is.

For newcomers not really concerned about syntax and specific's PureBasic is certainly worth a try.

[Max.]

In other words, why should I buy and learn PureBasic compared to PowerBasic?

As I do not know PowerBasic (and don't see a need to try it out), just a few thoughts about PureBasic.

1. Pricing & updating policy

- It's really affordable and with the demo available you can try it out a bit before making your final decision. It's fair in both aspects.
- You get any future update for free and there were/are lots of updates & improvements over a year. Again a very fair aspect.

2. Maintenance/support

- It's amazing to report a bug and see it fixed within hours.
- Also the influence on future releases regarding new commands & improvements is rather high. Never seen anything similar in any other software product.

3. Community

- There are quite a few pros around who help, though if you ask anything that was in the forum or FAQ already, they will probably slag you off before they help.
- The community is also very active in developing new libraries or wrappers. Just have a look at http://www.reelmediaproductions.com/pb

Anyway, if you never coded before, it will both in PowerBasic as PureBasic take you some time before you reach their limits, I figure. And will be frustrated with any product at a certain stage.

Basically it comes down to:

don't expect the advantages of a fully blown company with all it's manpower, money & marketing when dealing with PureBasic & Fred. But you'd never have the chance to be as close & influential to development on the other hand. It's just a question what of both is more comfortable for you.

[Psychophanta]

Besides of price, easy coding, etc. here are more differences between PowerBasic and PureBasic (i included gcc too for a basis comparation):

Compiled with PowerBasic 7.02 for Windows:

Code: Select all

#COMPILE EXE

FUNCTION PBMAIN () AS LONG

DIM starttime AS DWORD
DIM elapsedtime AS DWORD
DIM a(10) AS DWORD
DIM b AS DWORD
DIM i AS DWORD
b=2

FOR i=1 TO 500000000
    a(1)=a(2)+a(3)
    a(b)=a(1)-a(2)
    a(2)=17+i
    a(3)=100-a(2)
NEXT

     MSGBOX "Hello, World!"

END FUNCTION

On my machine (Athlon 900MHz) it takes about 23 seconds, and its .exe size is 7168 bytes.

Equivalent PureBasic code:

Code: Select all

Dim a(10)
b=2
For i=1 To 500000000
a(1)=a(2)+a(3)
a(b)=a(1)-a(2)
a(2)=17+i
a(3)=100-a(2)
Next

Messagebox_(0,"Hello, World!","",#MB_ICONINFORMATION)

Compiled with PB3.72. .exe size: 4640 bytes. Elapsed time (with my PC in identical conditions than above): about 10 seconds.

Same code for minimalize gcc for windows (perhaps the best C, C++ compiler for windows):

Code: Select all

#include <windows.h>

   int WINAPI WinMain (HINSTANCE hInstance, 
                        HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, 
                        PSTR szCmdLine, 
                        int iCmdShow)

   {

long starttime,elapsedtime, a[10], b=2, i;

//starttime=GetTickCount()
for (i=1;i<=500000000;i++)
{
	a[1]=a[2]+a[3];
	a[b]=a[1]-a[2];
	a[2]=17+i;
	a[3]=100-a[2];
}

//elapsedtime=GetTickCount()-starttime

      MessageBox (NULL, "Hello", "Hello Demo", MB_OK);
      return (0);
   }

.exe size: 24406 bytes. Elapsed time: about 7.5 seconds


Another example (now with floating point values instead of mem read/write tasks):
For PowerBasic 7.02 for Windows:

Code: Select all

#COMPILE EXE

FUNCTION PBMAIN () AS LONG

DIM starttime AS DWORD
DIM elapsedtime AS DWORD
DIM I AS DWORD
DIM y AS SINGLE
DIM x AS SINGLE
y=5

FOR I=1 TO 500000000
    x=x+y*1.000001
NEXT


    MSGBOX "Hello, World!"

END FUNCTION

.exe size: 6144 bytes. Time: about 8 secs.

Same in PureBasic:

Code: Select all

y.f=5 
x.f

For I=1 To 500000000 
x=x+y*1.000001 
Next 

Messagebox_(0,"Hello","",#MB_ICONINFORMATION)

.exe size: 4128 bytes. Time: about 7.8 secs.

Minimalize gcc for Windows:

Code: Select all

#include <windows.h>

   int WINAPI WinMain (HINSTANCE hInstance, 
                        HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, 
                        PSTR szCmdLine, 
                        int iCmdShow)

   {

long starttime,elapsedtime, I;
float y=5,x;

//starttime=GetTickCount()

for (I=1;I<=500000000;I++) x=x+y*1.000001;


//elapsedtime=GetTickCount()-starttime

      MessageBox (NULL, "Hello", "Hello Demo", MB_OK);
      return (0);
   }

.exe size:24406 bytes (it is because windows.h including). Time: about 7.4 secs.
If compiled with g++.exe (GCC with C++ stuff compiler) elapsed time is same, but the .exe size is more than double.

Note: i didn't use WinAPI function GetTickCount because i don't know (nor want to know) with PowerBasic.

In the past, i made some little programs using Borland C++ Builder 4.0 and same programs with PureBasic 3.51, and you can believe: in general I tested more speed (in final executable code) with PB than Borland Builder C++.

Note2: If you implement these pieces of code on BlitzBasic2D you will find no way to compare it, because Blitz is veeeery poor in speed and size of executables in comparison with PowerBasic and PureBasic; so it is not worthwhile to compare it.


AL

[Qwack]

if i had post same on Powerbasic-forum it will been censored or removed from their staff, believe me

Gosh, you are so right... The link (http://www.powerbasic.com/support/forum ... 08988.html) is completely gone! The post, the replies, everything... gone!

PureBasic it is... shows how much those guys over there care for other's opinions.

[Edwin Knoppert]

Also note the crash they had this weekend.
So it does not have to be as you suspect..

Some topics are there but damaged.